No. 22 • November 2013
Using Argumentation Learning Progressions to
Support Teaching and Assessments of English Language Arts
By Yi Song, Paul Deane, Edith Aurora Graf, and Peter van Rijn 1
Key Concepts
Learning progression: In
the CBAL research initiative, a
learning progression is defined
as a description of qualitative
change in a student’s level
of sophistication for a key
concept, process, strategy,
practice, or habit of mind.
Common Core State
Standards (CCSS): A
set of curricular goals in
English language arts and
mathematics adopted by
most states for students in
grades K–12.
Component task: A task that
targets a specific skill in the
learning progressions.
Scenario-based task: A set
of activities that integrate
reading, writing, and critical
thinking within a storyline.
Over the past few decades, there has been an increasing concern that educational
assessment provides little support for classroom learning. Some people question the
value of traditional summative assessments used in schools, and fear that teachers
lack high-quality formative assessments that target core skills in their curriculum. This
problem motivates researchers and educators to investigate best practices for using
assessment to inform instruction and learning. One such effort is the Cognitively
Based Assessment of, for, and as Learning (CBAL™) research initiative, which draws
upon curriculum standards and learning sciences research. The CBAL initiative aims
to build a model for an innovative K–12 assessment system that documents what
students have achieved (of learning); helps identify how to plan instruction (for
learning); and is considered by students and teachers to be a worthwhile educational
experience in and of itself (as learning) (Bennett, 2010). In this article, we will show
how learning progressions — describing how students’ skills develop over time — can
support teaching and assessments. We begin by giving a brief overview of research
on learning progressions under the CBAL project, in order to demonstrate how test
performance supports inferences about student competency. We proceed to illustrate
the theoretical framework using argumentation learning progressions and present
assessment items designed to measure the skills addressed by the progressions.
CBAL™ Learning Progressions
How do you know when a student is ready to take the next step in learning new skills?
This is one of the key questions educators face in their daily work. Introducing a skill
or concept too early will likely result in frustration and a failure to learn. Spending time
on a skill or concept that the student already understands will likely result in boredom
and disengagement. It is therefore crucial to know where a student stands on his or
her path towards mastery, but finding that out is not a simple task. One potential
solution to this problem, which has received increased attention in educational
research, is the application of learning progressions.
1
www.ets.org
ditor’s note: Yi Song, Associate Research Scientist; Paul Deane, Principal Research Scientist; and Edith Aurora
E
Graf, Research Scientist, work in the Research & Development division at ETS. Peter van Rijn is a Research
Scientist for ETS Global BV.
1
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
“Introducing a skill or concept
too early will likely result
in frustration and a failure
to learn. Spending time on
a skill or concept that the
student already understands
will likely result in boredom
and disengagement.”
The term “learning progression” was first introduced to describe possible levels in
student development of a specific skill or concept in the context of science assessment
(e.g., see Corcoran, Mosher, & Rogat, 2009, p. 37), but is now also applied to other
domains. Thus, it is not surprising that the definitions of learning progressions held
by researchers vary slightly. In the CBAL project, a learning progression is defined
as a description of qualitative change in a student’s level of sophistication for a key
concept, process, strategy, practice, or habit of mind (see CBAL Wiki at http://elalp.
cbalwiki.ets.org/Outline+of+Provisional+Learning+Progressions).
Learning progressions can inform both assessment and instruction by making the
expected developmental sequence explicit. Unlike the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), which focus on defining grade-level expectations, the CBAL learning
progressions emphasize qualitative shifts in performance that indicate when students
are ready to move on regardless of grade. In other words, learning progressions
support the design of assessment tasks intended to measure student qualitative
achievement levels. The assessment results can then be used to recommend classroom
activities that can help students proceed to the next qualitative level. Each progression
is presumed to be modal — that is, to hold for most, but not all, students. The CBAL
learning progressions for English language arts (ELA) are provisional models, subject
to empirical verification and theoretical challenge.
There are more than 40 ELA learning progressions within the CBAL project, covering
major skills in reading and writing activities.2 To illustrate our research approach, we
will focus on four learning progressions tied to argumentation, which is an important
research strand under the CBAL project. Argumentation skills are critical both in the
classroom and in the real world. Students must learn to state their own positions,
evaluate arguments, and respond to different perspectives if they are to become
successful professionals and members of a democratic society. Argumentation is
emphasized in the CCSS for English (Council of Chief State School Officers & National
Governors Association, 2010), but it is a skill that many students currently lack, which
leaves them ill-prepared for college and careers. We know from research that students
find it challenging both to interpret arguments in a text (Chambliss, 1995; Larson, Britt,
& Larson, 2004) and to produce their own arguments in writing (Ferretti, MacArthur, &
Dowdy, 2000; National Center for Education Statistics, 2008; Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2003).
We also know that traditional instruction covers the basics of composition (e.g., writing
a five-paragraph essay), but places little emphasis on argumentation and its related
critical thinking skills (Hillocks, 2002). In particular, argumentation is a complex and
challenging skill to teach.
To support instruction and learning about argumentation, the CBAL project creates
new forms of assessment that go beyond traditional summative assessment. Our
development approach is based on evidence-centered design (ECD; Mislevy, Steinberg,
& Almond, 2003), a method that maps how test performance supports inferences
about student competency. We drew upon curriculum standards and learning sciences
2
www.ets.org
teacher needs to deal with only a subset of the progressions related to what he or she is teaching in a given grade
A
or grade span.
2
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
“Argumentation is ... a skill
that many students currently
lack, which leaves them
ill-prepared for college and
careers.”
research to develop a competency model that defines the major skills needed in
argumentative reading and writing activities. Then we developed argumentation
learning progressions that help measure the level of argumentation skills students
have reached and to support teachers as they guide their students to higher levels of
performance. Each level of these progressions is keyed to relevant classroom activities
that help students develop their argumentation skills.
Argumentation Learning Progressions
Argumentation is a dialogue in which participants can take different positions and
change their minds as it proceeds. In order to successfully engage in such a dialogue,
participants should normally go through five phases in an argumentation cycle (see
Figure 1). These five phases are outlined below.
1) Understand the stakes: To make effective appeals in an argument, students
must understand the stakes, which involves thinking about the context and
the target audience.
2) Explore the subject: To have a meaningful conversation about a topic,
students must understand it. Shallow knowledge leads to ineffective
argumentation.
3) Consider positions: To play a role in an argumentative dialogue, students
must take a position and consider the positions others have presented.
4) Create and evaluate arguments: To defend a position, students must present
plausible reasons and evidence and address counterarguments. They should
also evaluate the arguments to identify unwarranted assumptions that could
undermine the logic.
5) Organize and present arguments: To join the discussion, a student must
frame his or her own case, and consider how to structure and present
each argument.
The actual process of building an argument is flexible and fluid. People can start
anywhere in the argumentation cycle and proceed in any direction between parts of
the process. They may even repeat steps when needed.
Each of these phases draws upon a different set of skills that requires separate learning
progressions. The argumentation learning progressions are aligned with four of the
five phases given in Figure 1:3
1) Appeal Building (understanding the stakes)
2) Taking a Position (considering positions)
3) Reasons and Evidence (creating and evaluating arguments)
4) Framing a Case (organizing and presenting arguments)
3
www.ets.org
xploring the subject is aligned with the inquiry learning progression, which is considered a more general literacy
E
skill that is used across genres.
3
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
Figure 1. Five phases of participating in argumentative discourse.
Each of these skills has its own progression through five developmental levels
(see Table 1):
• Preliminary (expected by pre-K to second grade)
• Foundational (expected by upper elementary)
• Basic (expected by middle school)
• Intermediate (expected by high school)
• Advanced (mastered in college or graduate school)
Grade information reflects a general sense of what is considered developmentally
appropriate for students at different points in their school careers, but it does not tie
specific learning progression levels to particular grade levels, since students’ skills and
prior knowledge may vary widely. It is possible for a high school student to be working
at a preliminary level with challenging material, or for a strong fourth-grade student to
be tackling basic-level tasks with material he or she knows well.
The qualitative shifts in the CBAL argumentation learning progressions correspond
to the developmental milestones in argumentation skills suggested by researchers.
Consider the Reasons and Evidence learning progression in Table 1. Researchers
have found that most students can state an opinion and offer at least one reason
for it at a fairly early age (e.g., McCann, 1989). Logically, this skill should be placed at
the preliminary level. At the next level (i.e., foundational), we specify that students
can elaborate their reasons and start to understand evidence, which is based on
empirical findings that students begin to elaborate and provide details in support
of their arguments as they reach the upper-elementary grades (Ferretti et al., 2000;
Ferretti, Lewis, & Andrews-Weckerly, 2009). Subsequently, we expect that students’
www.ets.org
4
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
“To support instruction
and learning about
argumentation, CBAL creates
new forms of assessment
that go beyond traditional
summative assessment. Our
development approach is
based on evidence-centered
design, a method that maps
how test performance
supports inferences about
student competency.”
understanding and use of evidence become relatively mature at the basic level. In
contrast, some skills could be challenging to students and might not develop before
adulthood unless instruction or scaffolding is provided. For example, students find
it difficult to analyze the assumptions behind their arguments even when they have
reached middle or high school (Kuhn, 1991), and it is rare for students of any age to
present arguments from both sides of an issue in their writing (Kuhn & Crowell, 2011;
Kuhn & Udell, 2003). Refuting opposing viewpoints presents an even greater challenge
(Ferretti et al., 2000; Knudson, 1992; Leitão, 2003; Nussbaum & Kardash, 2005). These
skills are placed at the intermediate or advanced level in the Reasons and Evidence
learning progression. As shown in Table 1, students only gradually develop full
control over all elements of a well-structured argument, which generally reflects the
developmental trends identified by research.
Because they are hypotheses, the argumentation learning progressions must be
carefully validated. Thus far, we have done an extensive literature review, conducted
an initial empirical study, and consulted four external experts in the field of teaching
argument-related skills. These outside experts agreed with the main focus of each
progression, but also raised some issues, including:
• the importance of describing changes in what students know about
argumentation, not just in what they can do when confronted with
an argument;
• the importance of introducing counterargument and critique from the
earliest stages of instruction; and
• the social nature of argumentation, and the importance for instruction
of treating argumentation as a dialogue between people with different
perspectives.
We have integrated each of these concerns into the current version of the
learning progressions.
www.ets.org
5
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
Table 1. Overview of Argumentation Learning Progressions
Social
Conceptual:
Argument Building
Conceptual:
Argument Building
Discourse
Appeal Building
Taking a Position
Reasons and Evidence
Framing a Case
Preliminary
Understands the idea of
trying to convince someone
by making some sort of
persuasive appeal
Understands the idea of
taking a side in an argument
and accepting or rejecting
another person’s statements
as true or false based on how
well one thinks it fits the facts
Understands the idea that
positions may need to be
supported with reasons
that will be convincing to
the audience
Approaches argument as a
chain of individual turns, and
understands and produces
such turns in context, such as
taking a position or giving
a reason
Foundational
Transfers the idea of making
a persuasive appeal into a
written context and does
some simple analysis of how
oneself or an author might
appeal or has appealed
to different audiences
and interests
Understands and expresses
positions in writing with
reasonable attention to what
one knows and some ability
to focus on what is important
in the domain
Recognizes, generates, and
elaborates on reasons in
writing, with some awareness
of the need for evidence, and
uses one’s own arguments to
counter others’ arguments in
an engaging, familiar context
Approaches persuasive text
as a coherently organized
sequence of reasons
supporting a position
Basic
Infers rhetorical structure in
texts, and builds rhetorical
plans of one’s own that
coordinate multiple appeals
and rhetorical moves into a
coherent effort to persuade a
target audience
Understands and expresses
positions clearly, capturing
their relationships to similar
and contrasting points
of view
Understands use of evidence
and clearly grasps the need
to provide evidence and
reasons that are directly
relevant to and support the
main point and which are
logically sound
Approaches persuasive text
as a logically structured
presentation of a case
with embedded reasons
and evidence
Intermediate
Shows flexibility in
interpreting and developing
rhetorical plans, with
sensitivity to differences
among audiences with
different points of view
Successfully analyzes
unstated assumptions,
biases, and other subjective
elements in a text and can
use that to develop one’s
own position more clearly
Understands the role of
critique and rebuttal and is
able to reason about and
respond to counterevidence
and critical questions
Approaches persuasive text
as part of a dialogue between
multiple perspectives with
appropriate attention to
counterpoint and rebuttal
Advanced
Displays a well-developed
rhetorical (metacognitive)
understanding of persuasion
Can use others’ arguments
to develop one’s own
understanding and then
frame one’s own position in
terms that exploit the current
“state of discussion”
Builds systematic mental
models of entire debates,
and use that model to
frame one’s own attempts
to build knowledge
Displays mastery of many
different forms of argument,
demonstrating flexible
understanding and control
of genre features
www.ets.org
6
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
Applying Argumentation Learning Progressions to Assessment Design
When designing assessments, we want to elicit evidence of the level of understanding
that students have reached. We are therefore using argumentation learning
progressions as a framework for assessment development. This section will not only
provide examples of component tasks (i.e., tasks that target specific skills identified in
the learning progressions) aligned to the Reasons and Evidence learning progression,
but will also show a scenario-based task set that integrates reading, writing, and
thinking related to argumentation.
Component Tasks
We have developed multiple sets of component tasks for each targeted skill in the
argumentation learning progressions to capture sufficient evidence about the levels
of student skills in argumentation. To illustrate, this section includes sample items for
Reasons and Evidence, and each item is designed to measure a skill at a specific level
in this progression. The following preliminary-level item (Reason-1-E) measures a
student’s ability to generate individual reasons to support a specific point, in sentence
form. It asks students to write one reason for celebrating birthdays in the classroom
and one reason against it. Students are only expected to give simple responses,
like “Birthday parties make kids feel happy and appreciated” or “Kids might get
competitive about bringing in the best birthday cake.”
Reason-1-E
When students reach the foundational level, they can generate multiple reasons
to support a position and embed those reasons in a paragraph-length position
statement. This skill is what we try to assess in the next item (Reason-2-E), which
asks students to write a paragraph to address the issue of whether or not parents
should pay their children for doing chores at home. Students are expected not only to
www.ets.org
7
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
express their position, but also to explain their supporting reasons. In contrast to the
preliminary level, we expect students to develop multiple arguments and elaborate to
a greater degree.
Reason-2-E
At the basic level, students should demonstrate skills in building logical, hierarchically
structured arguments. The following two screen shots display an item (Reason-3-E)
that assesses the targeted skill. Students first read some background information
about the metric system as well as a fact sheet and then decide their position on
the issue of whether or not the United States should switch to the metric system.
They should use the given information as evidence and then arrange reasons and
evidence to support main and subsidiary points. Obviously, this task involves a more
complicated skill than what the foundational level requires.
www.ets.org
8
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
Reason-3-E
At the intermediate level of the Reasons and Evidence learning progression, students
should be able to write simple critiques or rebuttals to other people’s arguments.
To measure this skill, we have developed specific tasks that require students to
www.ets.org
9
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
critically evaluate others’ arguments. The next item (Reason-4-E4) is a good illustration.
Specifically, students are asked to write a critique of Redman’s argument about the
author of Shakespeare’s work — that is, to identify reasoning flaws in the argument.
We normally give students information (e.g., a fact sheet in Reason-4-E) about the
topic or issue under discussion, which allows us to focus on their ability in using
evidence to evaluate arguments.
Reason-4-E
The advanced level requires students to demonstrate their full mastery in creating
and evaluating arguments. They should be able to write extended discussions and
critiques that place arguments in the larger context or discourse. The tasks therefore
normally involve reading multiple articles and conducting research to understand
current issues. In addition, students should show how their arguments contribute
to the ongoing discourse. For example, one task asks students to propose a policy
for using computers in the classroom and to explain how their policy addresses the
research findings on multitasking and learning outcomes that are described in the
given articles.
Component tasks allow teachers to identify specific skills with which a student has
difficulty. For instance, is a student challenged by using evidence (tested by a basiclevel item) or by writing a debatable and focused thesis statement (tested by a
foundational-level item)? Does a student fail to interpret arguments in a text (reading
skills), to express her own arguments (writing skills), or to use appropriate strategies
to analyze arguments (critical thinking skills)? If a student easily identifies major
4
www.ets.org
he screen shot does not show all the text by Marco Redman. When the item is administered online, students can
T
scroll down the bar to read the full text. In addition, they can click the menu “Factsheet” to check information.
10
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
reasons in an article, but struggles with creating her own arguments, the teacher could
brainstorm reasons with her and model ways to introduce reasons in an essay. Hence,
component tasks, if used in combination with learning progressions, can support
classroom instruction purposefully.
Scenario-Based Tasks
A second important strand of assessment development focuses on scenario-based
tasks that integrate reading, writing, and critical thinking within a storyline. Though
component tasks try to separate these modes for certain purposes, they are not
independent, but support one another and draw upon many of the same underlying
activities (e.g., Deane, 2011; Hayes & Flower, 1980; Newell, Beach, Smith, & Van Der
Heide, 2011). For example, a reader may have to evaluate someone else’s argument.
When the reader switches roles and starts writing a response, he or she will have to
formulate new arguments and think critically about how other people will evaluate them.
One of the scenario-based assessment sets, namely CBAL Junk Food (a scenario
about whether or not junk food should be sold in school), is designed to assess
a group of argumentation skills through four tasks, the last of which calls for the
integration of those skills. In the first task, students read short articles about the issue
of banning junk food in school and summarize their major arguments. The second
task asks students to organize people’s statements by deciding which side each
statement supports and to evaluate whether a piece of evidence supports or weakens
a particular claim. In the third task, students critique arguments in a letter to the
editor. They are expected to identify and explain problems in the reasoning or use of
evidence. Finally, students write a persuasive essay for their local newspaper to express
their opinion on the junk food issue. We have mapped each task to a particular level
of an argumentation learning progression, which supports useful inferences about
students’ performance.
Junk Food Scenario
www.ets.org
11
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
The scenario-based task design on the previous page has two important features. First,
it can help address a common problem in writing assessments — i.e., that students
tend to write in a vacuum and hence are ill-prepared to make arguments of their own.
After reading articles and analyzing people’s arguments about junk food, students
are likely to have a better understanding of the issue and have more meaningful
arguments in their essays. For instance, they can use information in the articles as
evidence to support their arguments rather than making things up.
Another important feature in our task design is the scaffolding elements embedded
in an assessment. For example, in the summary task for the Junk Food assessment,
students are initially given a few suggestions for how to write a good summary of
someone else’s argument. Then they read sample summaries and evaluate whether
these summaries make good use of the suggestions. Finally, they are asked to identify
problems in each summary. Once they have been introduced to the characteristics of
a good summary, students are required to write summaries of their own. This process
provides scaffolding to students who otherwise might not have been able to complete
the task. It also provides students with a set of standards for quality work that we want
them and their teachers to internalize, to make a habit of mind. Teachers can integrate
such tasks into their curriculum, deciding when and how they would like to use our
formative materials based on what levels their students have reached.
Conclusion
The ability to present and evaluate arguments is an essential skill for advanced
academic work in many fields and for a variety of professions (Graff, 2003). Specifically,
the Common Core State Standards put an emphasis on writing logical arguments,
requiring that students demonstrate sound reasoning and use relevant evidence
(Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association, 2010). In
this article, we used argumentation learning progressions to demonstrate how our
approach guides assessment development and informs instruction. We described
how one aspect of argumentation skills develops through five hypothetical levels and
showed the items and tasks for collecting evidence about a student’s performance
level. Initial empirical data on scenario-based task sets have recovered a sequence
of levels as we envisioned (Graf & van Rijn, 2012), and we will continue conducting
studies to evaluate the progressions. Our materials (e.g., learning progressions,
handbooks, scenario-based assessment sets, and component tasks), some of which
have been illustrated in this paper, can be used in flexible ways to suit teachers’
instructional purposes and to meet students’ learning needs.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Mary Fowles, Katherine Jueds, Nora Odendahl, RoseAnn
Morgan, and Susan Dasch for their contributions to the assessment design. We
also want to thank Margaret Vezzu and Debra Pisacreta, who storyboarded the
assessment items.
www.ets.org
12
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
References
Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: A
preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment.
Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8, 70–91.
Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the
gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 778–807.
Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An
evidence-based approach to reform. New York, NY: Center on Continuous
Instructional Improvement, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Council of Chief State School Officers, & National Governors Association (2010).
Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social
studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/ela-literacy
Deane, P. (2011). Writing assessment and cognition (ETS Research Report No. 11–14).
Princeton, NJ: ETS.
Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure
of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology,
101(3), 577–589.
Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal
on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally
achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 694–702.
Graf, E. A., & van Rijn, P. W. (2012). Recovery of learning progressions in CBAL English
language arts and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Northeastern Educational Research Education (NERA), Rocky Hill, CT.
Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.
Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Knudson, R. E. (1992). The development of written argumentation: An analysis and
comparison of argumentative writing at four grade levels. Child Study Journal,
22(3), 167–184.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing
young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science 22(5), 545–552.
www.ets.org
13
R&D Connections • No. 22 • November 2013
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development,
74(5), 1245–1260.
Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending
argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25, 205–224.
Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments: Studies of children’s
rhetorical awareness. Written Communication, 20(3), 269–306.
McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing: knowledge and ability at three
grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62–76.
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational
assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–67.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The nation’s report card: Writing
2007 (U.S. Department of Education Publication No. NCES 2008-468).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2008468.pdf
R&D Connections is published by
ETS Research & Development
Educational Testing Service
Rosedale Road, 19-T
Princeton, NJ 08541-0001
email: [email protected]
Editor: Hans Sandberg
Copy Editor: Eileen Kerrigan
Layout Design: Sally Acquaviva
Visit ETS Research &
Development on the web
at www.ets.org/research
Follow ETS Research on Twitter®
(@ETSresearch)
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing
Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo
and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are
registered trademarks of Educational Testing
Service (ETS). CBAL is a trademark of ETS. All
other trademarks are the property of their
respective owners. 24166
Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & Van Der Heide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning
argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research
Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304.
Nussbaum, M. E., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text
on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97(2), 157–169.
Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C, & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002 (U.S.
Department of Education Publication No. NCES 2003-529). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.